On May 3, 2007, at 10:22 AM, Philip Taylor (Webmaster) wrote:
>
>
>
> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
>> Will you agree that the spec defines a narrower (and perhaps
>> cleaner) language for documents than "everything on the web
>> ever", even if you disagree with some of the details of what is
>> allowed?
>
> Of course (for example, it omits "marquee"). Unfortunately
> that same spec. defines a wider (and distinctly dirtier)
> language for documents than HTML 4.01 Strict, and /that/
> is the issue with which I take exception. The charter
> calls for "A language evolved from HTML4 for describing
> the semantics of documents and applications on the World
> Wide Web". The language as proposed by the WHATWG is
> more closely evolved from HTML 3.2, pays lip service
> to "describing the semantics", and places far too
> much emphasis on "describing the processing of
> extant documents and applications ...".
Which specific things are included that aren't in HTML 4.01 Strict
that you think make the language dirtier? Did you notice that some
elements which are present in HTML 4.01 Strict have been removed from
document conformance (for instance <BIG> and <TT>)?
Regards,
Maciej